TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (6) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications seeking stay and waiver of the penalties was argued by Shri Prakash Shah Advocate, it appeared that the issue being small and well defined, the main appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done after hearing Shri V.K. Choubey the ld. DR for the Revenue. 2. The facts being common and the appellants being the same these appeals are being disposed of after granting waive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discharging said burden for March, 1999, there was a delay of one day for part of the amount and two days for the remaining amount. In the case of April, 1999 there was delay of one day. The Assistant Commissioner in his order observed that the assessees had already deposited the interest in terms of clause (i) of Rule Sub-rule (5) (supra). He further held that in terms of clause (ii), he was boun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....96ZQ does not indicate that the penalty is mandatorily to be imposed as equal to the amount delayed in payment. He submits that the language of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is more specific suggesting imposition of mandatory penalty. He refers to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT)]. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest ……….". The wording used in the rule before us is "he shall be liable to……, a penalty". There is an essential distinction in the manner in which the rule has been framed from the manner in which the section has been framed. Even when section suggests the mandatory nature the Tribunal in the cited order has given a different interpretation. On both the counts we find that the belie....